On DAisrunbybigots

Dear ,

Need I add another definition- Projection?

Psychological projection is the act or technique of defending yourself against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in yourself, while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude.

Although rooted in early developmental stages,[2] and classed by George Eman Vaillant as an immature defence,[3] the projection of one's negative qualities onto others on a small scale is nevertheless a common process in everyday life.[4]


Let me spell out what I'm talking about, so that you cannot quote-mine it or take it out of context.

Plutocracy (from Greek πλοῦτος, ploutos, meaning "wealth", and κράτος, kratos, meaning "power, dominion, rule") or plutarchy, defines a society or a system ruled and dominated by the small minority of the wealthiest citizens.

Class conflict, frequently referred to as class warfare or class struggle, is the tension or antagonism which exists in society due to competing socioeconomic interests and desires between people of different classes.

My enemy is the plutocrats, who use the stock market and corporate lobbying to buy out your "democracy" and use it to suit their needs. And for the record, you still have not addressed that as being wrong.

Lobbying (also lobby) is the act of attempting to influence decisions made by officials in the government, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies. Lobbying is done by many different types of people and organized groups, including individuals in the private sector, corporations, fellow legislators or government officials, or advocacy groups (interest groups)

Which is simply corporate overthrow.

Collectively, lobbying and plutocracy are central in capitalism and removing that dangerous power is my goal. So fuck your quote mining. This is my statement, bald and simple.

Which you still have yet to (dis)prove conclusively. May I teach you a few more terms-

Quote mining-

The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.[1] Contextomies are stereotypically intentional, but may also occur accidentally if someone misinterprets the meaning and omits something essential to clarifying it, thinking it non-essential.

Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms:

   As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute.
   As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position.[2]

In either case, while quoting a person out of context can be done intentionally to advance an agenda or win an argument, it is also possible to remove essential context without the aim to mislead, through not perceiving a change in meaning or implication that may result from quoting what is perceived as the essential crux of a statement.

No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing").[2] It can also be used to create unnecessary requirements.

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."Person B: "I am Scottish, and I put sugar on my porridge."Person A: "Well, no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.[2] Fallacious Ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy,[3][4][5] more precisely as a genetic fallacy,[6] a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.

Disprove my other assertion, besides that you are supporting plutocracy, by explaining how your shitting on debate are not anything listed in those definition.

I'll say it until you get it.